Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑4 of 1971, heard on 29th April 1971.

‑Appeal‑Limitation Time spent in obtaining copy of award appealed against‑To be excluded ‑ Limitation to run from date of award written and announced in Court‑Time spent on obtaining copy of award to he added to 30 days prescribed limitation period.

Obaid‑ur‑Rahman for Appellant.

Izzat Puri for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th April 1971.

This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), against an order, dated the 23rd of December 1970, whereby the learned Chairman of the 1st Sind Labour Court, Karachi, granted some of the 13 demands raised by the Collective Bargaini ng Agent.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Izzat Puri, the learned Representative for: the respondent, that the appeal being beyond the time prescribed under section 37 of the Ordinance, is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Representatives of the parties, the facts necessary are these.

3. The award was given on 23rd December, 1970. Application for a copy of the award was made by Mr. Habibullah, who is the President of the Trans‑Oceanic Steamship Company Works Union. The application was originally dated 26th December 1970, but the same had been scored out and is dated 4th January 1971. The date that has been scored out has been initialed by Mr. Habibullah. The application for a copy is on page 313 of the record of the learned Court. The learned Chairman, as would appear from the application for a copy of the award, ordered dated 6‑1‑71, that a copy should be issued on 6th January 1971. The copy, in fact, was also delivered to the appellant on 6th January 1971.

4. Under section 12 of the Limitation Act the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award appealed against is to be excluded. It is contended by Mr. Izzat Puri that the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award to be excluded is from 4th January 1971, to 6th January 1971 only. On the other hand, Mr. Obaidurrehman, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended, in the first place, that the Court having not delivered the award in writing on 23rd December 1970, the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award should be counted from the date when the award was typed out. In other words, the contention of Mr. Obaidurrehman is that the award is not an award within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Ordinance. What is required under section 37(1) of the Ordinance is that the award or decision of the Labour Court shall be given in writing and delivered in open Court. In order to examine the contention of the learned Advocate, Mr. Obaidurrehman, it would be necessary to refer to the Order Sheet of the Court. The Order Sheet of 23rd December, 1970, reads as under: ‑‑

"Award announced in open Court. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of."

5. The award is on the record of the Court. His dated 23rd December 1970. There is nothing on the record of this case to show that the award when delivered in open Court was not in writing. So far as the record of the case is concerned, it shows that it was delivered on 23rd December .1970, and was also ready on 23rd December 1970, as it bears that date. In that view, of the matter, the time to be deducted is only from 4th January 1971 to 6th January 1971.

6. In the second place, Mr. Obaidurrehman contended that the application in fact was made on 26th December 1970, but the office had refused to take it on that date. It was, therefore, presented by Mr. Habibullah on 4th January 1971. There is nothing on the record of this case to substantiate the submission of Mr. Obaidurrehman. I do not see any reason why the office will return the application to the appellant to be presented later on. On the other hand, in the appeal presented by the Management the application was made on 24th December 1970, and the same was accepted by the office on the same date. This application is on page 315 of the record of the Labour Court. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason why the office should have refused to take the application presented by the Union on 26th December 1970 and should have accepted the application of the Management on 24th December 1970.

7. The appeal by the Collective Bargaining Agent presented on 29th January 1971 was clearly beyond time. Under the Ordinance section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable. Under section 37(3) of the Ordinance the appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the delivery of the award. The award having been given on 23rd December, 1970, the appeal should have been filed on. 22nd January 1971. The appellant was entitled to add 3 days that he took in obtaining the copy of the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, should have been filed by 25th January 1971. The appeal was filed, however, on 29th January 1971. It is, therefore, clearly beyond time and is accordingly dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.